Breaking Down the Diplomatic Impasse on Syria

To bring down Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, it took seventeen days and it cost the Egyptian people 846 lives. The Syrian uprising began on March 15 2011 with peaceful protests in the city of Deraa,’ though Bashar Al-Assad was able to successfully turn those nonviolent protests (characteristic of the other Arab uprisings) into what observers have begun to call a civil war. At this time, 562 days have passed with an more than 26,000 Syrians dead. An estimated 5,400 were killed in August 2012 alone.

There has been some talk about the possibility of a Libya-style intervention in order to support the Syrian rebels. However, there are significant differences between the situation in Libya then and the situation in Syria now. First of all, Libya has a significant amount of oil which was vital to Italy’s economic stability, and since the overthrow of Qaddafi, western oil companies have already moved in or returned in order to pick up the pieces. Syria has no oil, and there are no European or western economies that depend on a stable Syria. Additionally, the Libyan intervention had the support of the United Nations Security Council. All attempts at even condemning the deteriorating situation in Syria have been met with Russian and Chinese vetoes, whereas for the vote on the intervention in Libya they only abstained.

Even after the grisly month of August, there does not appear to be any change in position from these countries to support action in Syria, whether that means further sanctions or military interventions. What do these countries have to gain by financially, militarily, and diplomatically supporting Assad’s brutality?

Russia has several interests in Syria, most of which having to do with arms sales that amount to about $700 million per year to Assad’s regime. These arms deals have included most recently surface to air missiles (a not so subtle nod to Libya’s no-fly zone), armored rocket complexes and possibly even fighter jets. Arms deals are lasting connections; they do not end with an immediate transaction. An arms deal often requires years of training, maintenance and additional sales of ammunition. There are also several connections forged between the two countries that date back to the Cold War Era. First and foremost Syria has the last remaining Russian military base outside of its borders: the naval base in Tartus. However to a certain extent there is a deeper connection. During the Cold War era Syrian elites would often end up going to Russia for higher education and many as it turns out brought back a husband or a wife. As a result, there are approximately 30,000 Russian citizens living in Syria.

Russian diplomats have argued that if it is appropriate for Gulf countries and western powers to provide arms and support to the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council, then why is Russia being criticized for supporting the regime? As empty as the argument may be, it is one that the US quietly understands. The US supported the Saudi Arabian intervention in Bahrain to crush the uprising there. Why would the US support the brutality in Bahrain? Well, it would likely come down to arms deals and the US naval base there (in addition to keeping oil markets stable, of course).

China claims that its interests in Syria do not go further than its relationship with Russia. Others have claimed that China’s foreign policy is based on a traditional view of international relations that demagogues the notion of sovereignty, apparently to the point of turning a blind eye to a bloodbath. However, China has not been neutral. They’ve vetoed the three Security Council attempts to punish the Assad regime, and have at the very least facilitated the transfer of arms from North Korea that was on route to Latakia before it was seized.

Iran, the regional rival of the governments aligned against Syria, has been actively supporting Assad’s regime with logistical and economic support as well as the presence of the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force. Iran’s interests in standing by the Assad regime are two-fold: 1) Syria remains Iran’s access to the Mediterranean and the Levant and is a crucial component of facilitating material and military support to Hezbollah in Lebanon; and 2) Syria is a government dominated by Shia that is currently facing down a rebellion that is being supported by the Sunni-dominated Gulf states. While Bahrain’s Sunni minority crushes the resistance of the Shia majority (with US support), Iran is supporting the Syrian regime—dominated by the Shia minority—in their repression of Syria’s Sunni majority. There is no question that Iran would be regionally weaker without its long term Syrian ally. Iran is especially weary of this loss in the face of the recent turmoil surrounding its nuclear program and the western threats of military attack that have gone along with it.

One predominant problem facing a real policy shift for these countries is that the chips are already down so to speak. Even if Russia and Iran were to cut off aid to the Assad regime today and a new government was to emerge, this government would naturally carry quite a bit of resentment for the countries that armed and protected Assad’s terrorist government. The policy of support for dictators is inevitably counterintuitive particularly when it comes to forging long lasting geopolitical partnerships.

These are the diplomatic impasses that are stymieing further action in Syria. As the new UN envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi has said, this going to take an international effort in order to achieve the quick end to the bloodshed. This does not just mean America and its regional allies. If the western powers (including the US) are serious about really ending support for the Assad regime, they will need to engage with all parties. This includes China and Russia, but this also includes engaging Iran which, unfortunately the west has been reluctant to do at any time, on any issue.

Moreover it is necessary to complicate the western military support for the Syrian opposition. As much as I might favor nonviolence I do not favor at all suicide by dictator, which leaves in a default position of supporting the armed rebels. However, we should be mindful that the opposition and the rebels are not homogenous. There are fighters being backed by the specific parties of the Syrian National Council, others backed by specific Gulf countries, and while each is interested in the fall of the Assad regime, not all are committed to a military resolution and not all are committed to a free and democratic Syria. What is more is that choosing specific groups with interests that do not coincide with the interests of the Syrian people is wholly immoral. Rather than a chance to advance any particular party’s geopolitical interests all polities should be concerned with safety of the Syrian population. Syria is not a piece on a chessboard; it is a country with real issues with real people in real danger. All parties—America, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.—ought to respect that.

Remembering the Syria of Yesterday

The first thing I noticed in Syria was Bashar al-Assad. This guy was everywhere. There was simply no doubt who was in control, and who was in power. You’d see his picture in the kiosks of street vendors, in the windows of bus stations, plastered on the backs of cars, posted over the gates of mosques. I saw Assad stretched four stories tall and draped across the front of buildings; I even saw his picture in the men’s restroom (in the corner of a mirror, rather than the bottom of a urinal). This was spring 2010, one year before the country would begin turning into a warzone. While I was there I actually witnessed a protest of sorts. My friends and I were walking along the streets in Damascus when perhaps fifteen young men wandered into a roundabout with picket signs—they were pro-Assad demonstrators hired by the government to protest… traffic, I suppose.

Beyond the absurdity that was the constant reminder Assad’s narcissism, the trip was amazing. I met some of the friendliest people I’ve met anywhere in the world in Syria.

In Hama, the group I was with met a few young men that wanted us join them while they sang songs in a public park (I get the feeling they were interested in the girls I was with). We talked—not about politics, not in public—and they sang songs in Arabic, before they asked us to sing a song for them. I’m not much of a singer and I’m also a bit shy so I wasn’t keen on joining in when one of the girls I was with started singing “Don’t Stop Believing” by Journey. It seemed ridiculous for a moment, but then the young men joined in knowing… most of the words I suppose.

I woke up early one morning in Homs and walked into the main reception area.  I say ‘main reception area’ when what I really mean is the hostel owner’s living room. He offered me coffee, and even though I declined he brought me a cup anyway. I was soon followed in by the owner’s young child who turned on the TV to watch the same Batman cartoon that I grew up with.

Our last day there we were wandered around the Khan As'ad Pasha, a historic market that's now popular tourist trap near Ummayyad Mosque. The friends I was with were interested in getting a souvenir that involved colored sand in glass bottles. I distinctly heard a sound I was not expecting to hear in Damascus: Dimmu Borgir, a fairly intense metal band, was blaring out of one of the nearby stores. I followed the sound into a store that sold tacky little necklaces to tourists and the store clerk quickly reached out to turn the volume dial to off on his CD player. The store clerk was heavy set, likely in his late 40s and was wearing blue jean shorts and a polo shirt. His appearance didn’t exactly scream ‘head banger.’ He began going through the usual store clerk greeting when I changed the subject to Dimmu Borgir. He laughed and explained that he used to be in his own death metal band, one of the few that have apparently ever existed in Syria.

I had done a research paper in the past about the metal scene in Iran, so I was curious about how it might compare. I asked if he ever had ever encountered any problems being in a metal band.

He shifted uncomfortably. “Of course,” he said.

I replied, “From the government? There are laws?”

He seemed to size me up for a minute and looked around. This isn’t the kind of conversation you would have comfortably in public, not with Assad’s secret police permeating the country. “Yes, from the government,” he answered. He explained that his band’s lyrics had to be approved by a government censor if they were going to distribute it on CDs. Not only that, but there were only three clubs in all of Syria where his band could play. The clubs had to have special permits and so did each band that played. At these clubs, the shows were even regulated. The fans, he explained, were required to remain seated.

In my head I conjured an image of every other metal club I’ve been in, dingy and a bit dark, with a long haired black-clad band screaming their heads off and pushing their amps beyond their capacity to make a reasonable sound; I imagined similarly black-clad fans with ridiculous makeup… seated motionless and quiet in their fold-out chairs. It was the single most depressing image I may have ever put in my own head.

I didn’t really know what to say. “That’s terrible, man,” I said. Impotent as it was, it was the best I could come up with.

He didn’t seem angry or bitter.  He just shrugged, his eyes heavy with fatigue. “It’s fucked. In Syria, you’re not allowed to be yourself.”

A local woman wearing hijab walked into his store and he began with his typical store clerk greeting, this time in Arabic. He gave me half a smile and a nod, and I left.

I have no way of knowing what became of any of them. The rockstar in Damascus, if he has stayed put and kept his head down, could be perfectly safe. Damascus has been hit with a few bombings, but largely the regime is still strong there and the city has escaped the worst of the violence. The singers in Hama however, I do truly fear for.  Hama was the site of Hafez al-Assad’s wrath back in 1982 when over 10,000 people died under the crush and thunder of artillery and bombs. The city hasn't faired much better as Hafez's son confronts the current uprising. Perhaps the worst has come to fruition or perhaps they are far away in Jordan or Turkey as a refugee. There’s simply no way to know.

When I see reports from Syria in my newsfeed, I feel a mix of emotions. The sadness in me simply wants them all to be safe; the anger—to my shame—wishes for them to fight Assad’s terrible regime and have vengeance for the more than 25,000 that have perished under the Assad regimes forces; but really what I want most is for that rockstar in Damascus to have found something to feel hope for, that though things maybe more horrific and horrible now than they’ve ever been, his country’s future is more malleable now than it’s been in decades.

There is reason to despair and reason to be afraid, but this is nothing new for Syrians. What is new, is that while for the past year Syria's present has been more dark and bloody than most can remember and Syria's future is completely uncertain, there is hope in that uncertainty; today there is hope for a free Syria tomorrow.

The Crime Of Introspection

About Last Week…

In the past week it has become increasingly clear that the protests are about more than simply an amateur hate film produced by a collection of bigots. There is a latent anti-Western sentiment that persists in the Middle East, regardless of the events of the Arab Spring. This sentiment is important and bears some serious investigation and discussion that I currently have yet to encounter on any popular media outlet.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough explained the recent images coming out of the Middle East to his viewers this morning, “You know why they hate us? I’ve been talking to intelligence people all weekend and you know what they said? They hate us because of their religion. They hate us because of their culture and because of peer pressure.” He went on to re-emphasize the point with an academic eloquence and wisdom, “They hate us because they hate us.”

Much has been made of America’s ostensible sainthood in the region in the face of “ungrateful” Arabs. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton responding to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens said, “Today, many Americans are asking—indeed, I asked myself—how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we saved from destruction?” CNN ran a headline that bizarrely asked, “Was the Arab Spring Worth It?” Additionally, Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson asked in The Huffington Post, “As despicable as he was, would our ambassador and three other dedicated public servants have been in killed in a Gaddafi-controlled Libya? Are we safer today… after killing Gaddafi? Clearly not.”

Recently, some American politicians (Johnson is one of them) have called on ending all foreign aid to the affected countries, notably in the case of Egypt, the second largest recipient of such aid. But we must understand that Egypt has been receiving this large sum of aid for decades; two years ago the Mubarak regime received the funds before President Hosni Mubarak was ousted by the Egyptian people as a corrupt, brutal dictator. Perhaps Americans shaking their heads in disbelief and outrage are not conscious of this history, but you can be sure that Egyptians most certainly are.

For decades Egyptians lived in fear of their government. Protests and criticism directed at the Mubarak regime was often met with police batons, indefinite detention, and in other cases outright murder. Two years ago Egyptians would not have been able to march on the US embassy demanding for the end of American support for Mubarak and others like him.  For decades America subsidized such a regime, and now that regime is gone.

This type of relationship is typical of most regimes in the region, particularly so with respect to the emerging governments of the Arab Spring. Yemen’s regime has had little more than a cosmetic makeover; for the past few years, Qaddafi had started down the path of reconciliation with Western powers and Tunisian strongmen had good relations with the US for decades.

What is more, the disparaging remarks aimed at the “blossoms of the Arab Spring” take a very narrow view. Only four countries thus far have experienced a change in leadership since January 2011. These protests go beyond the borders of these few countries. Thousands are protesting in Bahrain where the protesters of the Arab Spring were crushed by their government with the support of the United States and its surrogate in Saudi Arabia. I have yet to hear anyone ask the question “Is our support of autocracy in Bahrain worth it?” Or better yet: “Is our support of any autocracy worth it?”

Imagine that you had lived your entire life fearing your government. I mean really fearing your government. For most reasonable Americans the only fear they have of their government is stirred up by the brutal injustice of a speeding. Imagine being terrified that criticizing your government might result in torture, detention, or death. What kind of feelings do you think you would have about the benefactor that distributes billions of dollars in support for your government and its policies? When your tyrant—the one you’ve lived in fear of, the one your parents and grandparents have lived in fear of—finally begins to crumble, the benefactor vanishes; and when that tyrant is gone completely the benefactor reappears and says, “You’re welcome.” How do you suspect you would feel about this benefactor?

The United States has operated in the Middle East through brutal surrogates who have exercised their power in a manner completely anathema to so-called “American values” with the full consent of the American government. When these tyrants fall, no matter what role we’ve had for the past year, we cannot expect a warm, shortsighted embrace. This is especially the case while US support for human rights violators and autocracies in the region persists.

A Note About Apologies

Recently Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, condemned Barack Obama’s administration for apologizing for America and "America's values.” Romney’s criticism came during the latest crisis in U.S. foreign policy as thousands of Muslims protested—and in some cases breached—U.S. embassies in the Middle East.  Leaving aside the fact that the Obama administration made no apology whatsoever, Romney’s chants decrying Obama’s past and present “apologies” should garner some additional attention.

When I first heard Romney make the charge, I did what I imagine most reasonable people did: I dismissed the comments as the latest in the Romney’s “post-factual” campaign and angrily affirmed “there was no apology!” I saw this same reaction from various Obama surrogates, as if—for some reason—we are all appalled by the notion.

Granted, in the case of the past week, there is little for the Obama administration to apologize for. However, this notion goes back some time. Romney and his surrogates have accused Obama of going on an international “apology tour” as far back as the Republican primary. Various factcheckers have found no evidence of any apology issued by the Obama administration.

But really:  What’s so wrong with apologizing? When did this basic concept of admitting guilt and expressing regret become so politically toxic?

Would it really be so bad for an American politician to apologize for wrongs committed in the name of US foreign policy? Would it be so unthinkable, so repugnant that an American politician might apologize for the grossly mismanaged war of choice in Iraq? The blunders committed in the aftermath of the invasion and their grisly consequences are surely not up for debate at this point. Would it be so unthinkable to express regret about overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953? Surely we can all agree that Muhammad Mossadeq’s government would be preferable to the Iranian regime we know today.

Do Americans really believe that we are infallible? The only way forward, toward new relations in the Middle East, requires that we acknowledge our past. A moral nation—the kind that I believe America can be, the kind that I believe the American people it want to be—will not be able to acknowledge such a past without regret and remorse. If we truly wish to rebuild our reputation in the Middle East, apology will be necessary, both for our mistakes and our misdeeds.